Talk:Global Maritime Distress and Safety System

Lives Saved
Since the implimentation of GMDSS has the number of lives safed increased because there are more people?

Have the lives rescued since implimentation been in heavily populated areas? If so, GMDSS was not neccessary.

The oldest safety maxim says that there is safety in numbers. Radio technology has improved; but GMDSS is there instead of a professional communicator/electronics tech. ledge


 * Those qualified to use GMDSS are "professional communicators", and as you say, Radio tech. has improved, into GMDSS, not as well as GMDSS.
 * Sea Areas are not "Heavily Populated", and even so, some form of communication is req'd from vessels/persons in distress.
 * Condeh 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed?
What clean up is needed for this article, because my suggestbot suggests that this article requires clean up? Bold Vier (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * External Link A Brief Explanation on GMDSS is leading to a 404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.135.150 (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This page is very US-centred
This page is very US-centred: something of an irony considering that the G in GMDSS stands for Global and that the US has not yet declared its coastline an A1 area! 91.84.176.243 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Components of GMDSS are missing in the article
- VHF radio

- Two-way handheld VHF radios

- MF radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.4 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos of equipment
It would be nice to see photos of the various different types of equipment. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ending of the Inmarsat monopoly
A commentary on how Iridium managed to compete : - Could use as ref ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoever read this
Please, before writing anything with vague words read sources first. Thank you! AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Specific examples might help? Of both "vague words" and the relevant source(s). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, the definition should be more clear and refer to related articles present on Wikipedia; the sources explaining more details should be provided; you can find examples in MOS:WORDS TO WATCH; the best is to avoid omitting important things; the WP:INTRO is expected to summarize the article's body content. Best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 13:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Manual of Style/Lead section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Intro
- «"new" is meaningless» - «Undid revision 1063719056 by Martinevans123 talk)» - «could you please just revert the one change you dispute? many thanks»  - ''«Undid revision 1054845015 by Alexander Davronov talk) finally the edit that needed reverting. Introduced grammar errors, poor tone, style failures. Did not contain any improvements.»'' - «Undid revision 1054846507 by Martinevans123 talk) one more...» - «Undid revision 1054846429 by Martinevans123 talk) last one...» - «Undid revision 1054902823 by ActivelyDisinterested talk) also nothing wrong with this, just need to straightforwardly revert preceding edit» - «Undid revision 1055914425 by Orenburg1 talk) nothing wrong with this, just undoing it to make it easier to undo a preceding edit»
 * Why do you remove the sources (cite tags) to the treaties? Why would a freshly-registered user have so much interest in overhauling this article's intro? -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit introduced many fundamental errors of English into the article. Clearly, you are a speaker of Russian, not of English, and you suffer from the characteristic failure of Russian-speakers to understand articles. You omit them when they are necessary, and use them when they are incorrect. You also used contractions, which gave your text a childish appearance. You also split the lead text into five fragments instead of the required no more than four well-composed paragraphs. You also actually removed the definition of an acronym, in astonishing violation of common sense and of the relevant guideline.
 * Making those mistakes once was bad enough. But to restore your edit in all its inadequacy, while also trashing the later edits which had improved the article from the state I left it in, was tantamount to vandalism. Quite why you have reproduced a part of the article history above, and quite why you are talking about cite tags, I do not know. The simple fact here is that your edit of 12 November 2021 was riddled with errors and had no redeeming qualities, and so it needed to be reverted in its entirety. Hohaaa (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * [00:39, January 5, 2022]
 * Please, be WP:CIVIL and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. See WP:NPA.
 * ← Omit what? English articles? Nothing severe here.  WP:PRESERVE/WP:FIXFIRST. Again, this nitpicking justifies nothing.  This can be easily solved by joining the last two paragraphs.  Every acronym is in place (including a GT - gross tonnage).undefined  Are you WP:HERE?  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Using articles when they are incorrect and omitting them when they are necessary is not "nothing severe". It is a serious failing. What extraordinary arrogance, to try to downplay your errors in this way. Your edit here had no redeeming qualities, and even if it had, it was so riddled with errors that it would not have been worth anyone's time to work through it fixing them all. If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page. Hohaaa (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Monitoring 500 KHZ. 96.61.99.78 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)